Can we get a reason to rush resources early in game. Currently there is no reason to do so. Can we get bump in firepower if we mine resources early, For example mining Elerium give us a 5% dmg increase to beams and correlating increase to shields.
Larsenex
The study basically states that the old theory that continued or prolonged exposure of a behavior will cause said behavior is now debunked. Violence in games or sex will NOT cause violence or promiscuous behavior in anyone AT ALL.
That is a pretty good idea. The bonus to ships built should not have a distance to shipyard penalty. I like more 'connector' lines such as trade routes from GC II so this would make me happy and help with a reason to get the resource.
That's pretty good. Please put more in!
Is anyone surprised by this? http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40217/the-biggest-gaming-news-sites-are-involved-in-a-massive-conspiracy/index.html?utm_source=ttnewsletter&utm_medium=ttemail&utm_campaign=ttcs
Brigthblade, I do know that resources will be trade-able when we get Diplomacy and trade up and going in Beta 2. Thanks for the support. I do think a slight immediate increase in correlating weapons/defenses upon securing a resource would make them MUCH more valuable. Again these have limitless possibilities. I still think the 'penalty' assigned to the augments is not needed as the increase you get from the augment is currently not even worth the effort of
Again Gilmoy you clarified my concerns. Thanks very much for the reply.
Darca, that nails it.
I am going to bump this post. Does anyone agree or disagree that there is ZERO reason even AFTER our game is released to go out and rush mine resources? Again if I rush out to get Elerium or Durantium, I will see ZERO benefit for all the time I wasted getting TWO constructors out and mine the resource until I am IN The AGE OF WAR.... AND The augment itself has shown to be of ZERO value when added
Same as Lucky Jack, I have a GTX 670 and get great frame rates.
Sgsmitty64, In short the answer will be yes. All that falls under optimizations which will probably occur near the end of the Beta phase (Feb or March of next year).
From Tweak Town http://www.tweaktown.com/news/40157/research-indicates-violent-video-games-help-to-reduce-crime-rates/index.html?utm_source=ttnewsletter&utm_medium=ttemail&utm_campaign=ttcs
This does indeed sum up all the 'drama' you have been party to. Hope SJW will learn those kind of tactics will only fail and rebound on them in the long run.
^^^ Come on over to the Steam forums and tell them that 'thegeeman'....hehe.
Thats the Point Gilmoy, currently if you mine and have ONE resource node you get ONE which means you can build ONE SHIP that requires ONE durantium or such. It is NOT fleetwide. Currently I feel the amount of production and money spent GETTING a resource not do not weigh against the value of the end result..ie, an augment for a ship WAY off the tech tree. Now I know we are getting MORE resources, but realistically we should have a reason to say to
Currently after I build a Mining base (2 constructors minimum), I will still fail to see any benefit for the resource until I get into the AGE of War. I would like to suggest a change. Upon acquiring said resource you immediately get a benefit to either Defense or Attack based on that strategic resource as tied further up the tech tree. What I am am shooting for is a reason to RUSH out and getting said resources which SHOULD be the case. Right now there is NO reason to
Ill give your questions my best shot. 1) I like a multiple choice set up and I like snappy or unexpected answers. Trying to bully the AI and get a snappy answer will leave me rolling on the floor with laughter. An unexpected answer to a question I thought I knew the answer to is perhaps the funnest part of Diplomacy. Civ V, had this, Gal Civ II had this. Also it would help to have omniscience on where I stand with the AI. Civ 5 kept that info from me. It made it seem li
Ok that is much more clear. Again in the example. If the Drengin have Planetary Invasion (Age of War) and they are the ones who got it and did not trade for it, they could give it to me, even if I was in a lower Age or not near it in unlocks...
It still does not make any sense. For tech trading you are saying you have to have 'already' researched it in order to trade it, however that makes the actual trade (impossible) since the party who wants it cannot get it if they did not research it. <span style="font-family: '
To be clear, on tech trading you can only trade techs you have researched yourself, so that means you cannot get or acquire other techs since you didn't research them, correct? With Tech brokering I can be t
So, during our last stream I heard talk about if tech trading will be in which it will be. What is the difference between Tech Trading and Tech Brokering as it pertains to the game? <span st
Great News! Will we fix the Iridium starbase crash bug?
Reproduction by Fission. We need a species that does this. When time is correct the over ripe non-gendered species 'Splits into 3 copies of itself' These copies then undergo internal hormonal changes which change it from the original matrix, giving rise to identity and self. ^^^ Well I suppose someone else can do a better job, but I was just tossing that out there.
[quote who="parrottmath" reply="3" id="3492364"] Don't anomalies spawn randomly throughout the game. [/quote] Currently when you select anomalies they are generated one time. There was some discussion about having them re spawn during the game but as far as I remember Paul was on the fence. I for one would prefer if they re spawn especially on smaller maps.
Both of these issues will be fixed. The AI as you know is a placeholder. When the AI gets coded actually for the game I pretty sure it will do exactly what you are doing here. Which leads to this.... Currently there is no economic penalty for that many star bases. There will be. The simple solution is to spiral up the cost of so many star bases that it begins to outweigh their economic benefit. This way you still can put as many as you like or whi